People v. Hart
| Decision Date | 20 December 1928 |
| Docket Number | No. 18928.,18928. |
| Citation | 164 N.E. 156,333 Ill. 169 |
| Parties | PEOPLE v. HART. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Error to Criminal Court, Cook County; John R. Caverly, Judge.
George Hart was convicted of robbery, and he brings error.
Reversed and remanded, with directions.Louis Greenberg, George M. Tearney, and William C. Connor, all of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.
Oscar E. Carlstrom, Atty. Gen., Robert E. Crowe, State's Atty., of Chicago, and James B. Searcy, of Springfield (Edward E. Wilson, of Chicago, of counsel), for the People.
Plaintiff in error, George Hart (hereafter called defendant), was indicted, with others, in the criminal court of Cook county on July 12, 1922, for the crime of robbery. During August, 1922, he entered a plea of not guilty, and the cause was thereafter continued to the September term of court. On the 12th day of September, 1922, by agreement of the state's attorney, defendant, and his counsel, the case was set for October 10, 1922. On the day the case was set for trial the cause was continued to November 8, and on that day counsel for defendant moved the court to grant him a separate trial, which motion was allowed. It is apparent from the abstract of the record that the indictment, which is not set out in the abstract, contained other counts than the one for robbery, for the abstract of the record shows that on motion of the state's attorney it was ordered that the charges, except as to the larceny count, be waived. The record shows: ‘And now, issue being joined, it is ordered that a jury come,’ etc. A jury was impaneled to try defendant for the crime, and after hearing the testimony returned a verdict as follows: ‘We, the jury, find the defendant, George Hart, guilty of larceny in manner and form as charged in the indictment, and we further find from the evidence the value of the property so stolen to be $2,600, and we further find from the evidence that since the commission of said offense the defendant George Hart, has become insane, and is insane now, and we further find from the evidence that said defendant, George Hart, is now about the age of 27 years.’ Thereupon the court entered judgment that defendant be committed to the Chester State Hospital at Menard, there to be safely kept until restored to his right mind and adjudged by the medical superintendent of said hospital and the board of commissioners of public charities a fit subject to be discharged.
The record shows that, after the judgment was rendered, defendant moved for a new trial and in arrest of judgment, which motions were overruled. There is no bill of exceptions in the record. Defendant assigns as error that the court erred (1) in not arresting the judgment; and (2) in sentencing him to the Chester State Hospital.
Counsel for defendant contend that, under section 13 of division 2 of the Criminal Code (Cahill's Stat. 1927, par. 622, p. 942), a defendant cannot be placed on trial for the crime for which he is charged, if he is insane at the time of trial; that a regular jury, impaneled to try the case under a plea of not guilty, cannot bring in a verdict finding the defendant became insane after the commission of the crime.
Sections 12 and 13 of division 2 of the Criminal Code (Cahill's Stat. 1927, p. 942) are as follows:
Section 13 provides that a person who has become insane after the commission of a crime shall not be tried for the crime during the continuance of the insanity, and the court is authorized...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cleggett
... ... This court has held that it is the duty and responsibility of a defendant or his counsel to raise the question of whether the defendant is insane at the time of trial. People v. Reck, 392 Ill. 311, 64 N.E.2d 526; People v. Maynard, 347 Ill. 422, 179 N.E. 833; People v. Hart, 333 Ill. 169, 164 N.E. 156. When, before or during trial, facts are brought to the attention of the court, either by suggestion of defense counsel or the State or by the court's own observation, which raise a bona fide doubt of defendant's then sanity, a duty devolves upon the court to cause a ... ...
-
United States v. Ragen
...the accused and his counsel. People v. Haupris, 396 Ill. 208, 71 N.E.2d 68; People v. Wagner, 390 Ill. 384, 61 N.E.2d 354; People v. Hart, 333 Ill. 169, 164 N.E. 156. This follows from the fact, stated in People v. Bacon, 293 Ill. 210, 127 N.E. 386, 388, that "It has long been the law in th......
-
Brown v. People
...In his oral remarks at the time of his denial of the petition, the trial court stated that he was relying upon the case of People v. Hart, 333 Ill. 169, 164 N.E. 156. We are of the opinion that the Hart case does not require such a result in the instant case. In the Hart case, the defendant......
-
State v. Collins
... ... whose mind a real doubt of sanity or mental capacity to ... defend had to be created. 23 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 940, p ... 235; People v. Hart, 333 Ill. 169, 173, 174, 164 ... N.E. 156; Dietz v. State, 149 Wis. 462, 480, [162 ... Kan. 40] 136 N.W. 166, Ann.Cas.1913C, 732; State v ... ...